P.S. - I suppose it's useful, to have a short excerpt from the article here as well; so:

"It is vitally important to realize that the 'quiet' sun really isn't all that quiet," says Rich Behnke, program director in NSF's Division of Atmospheric Sciences. "These high-speed streams of wind can affect many of our communications and navigation systems. And they can come at any time, during any part of the solar cycle."

"The sun continues to surprise us," says lead author Sarah Gibson of NCAR's High Altitude Observatory. "The solar wind can hit Earth like a fire hose even when there are virtually no sunspots."

From the standpoint of electric stars, is this the norm?If so, why is it just now being noticed?As a general rule, is the solar electrical environment chaotically unstable?If so, why do relatively "minor" [compared, say to the galactic/interstellare circuit] solar flares have such an effect on the aurorae? Ie. shouldn't we be seeing "wild" fluctuations in the aurora all the time?

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

I answer my own question... the fluctuations currently being observed may be due to the tilt of the earth's axis wrt the solar plasma stream. Not so wild, or implicitly extreme, as suggested by the thread title. In addition, is it possible/likely the character of the electrical and magnetic circuitry, rather than sheer amount of particles expelled in sunspots [when they are occuring] augments the prominence of auroral displays.

Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

Because the earth transitions through the galactic plane, the flow of Galactic current also changes in relation to the earth. Stephen Hawking concluded that energy is being ejected from the center of our galaxy and returning on the galactic equatorial plane. Therefore, there are two distinct Galactic current flows depending on which side of the galactic plane the earth and sun are located. This flow of Galactic current has been estimated at 10 to the 19th power A by A.L. Pratt W. Peter and C.M. Snell of Los Alamos National Libratory.When current flow is reversed in an iron core object the magnetic poles reverse. The earth’s magnetic poles have been slowly moving as the earth moves closer to the Galactic equatorial plane. I suspect as it crosses the plane the poles will shift with the shift in Galactic current flow. As for the present direction of current flow it depends on whole flow vs. electron flow.

It would appear that as the earth nears the Galactic equatorial plain the amount of Galactic current should increase. This may cause a heating of the earth iron core as the current increases. After the shift in Galactic current direction the current flow should decrease, also cooling the earth’s iron core.

When was the last time our solar system crossed the galactic plane, anyway? And when was the last time that we surmised that the magnetic poles had reversed? Could we check the dates and see if they corrolate?

If magnetic pole shifts were expected during transition of the galactic plane, we would expect to see the magnetic poles of the Sun and the planets to destabilize a bit, wouldn't you think? Might not that even account for the wandering around of the north magnetic pole of Earth, and how it was witnessed to be moving with some alactrity towards Russia?

Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

SpaceTravellor wrote: (snip) This pushing galactic force must therefore also have an effect on the planetary orbits and maybe also on the rotational axis. The Earth's perihelion occurs around January 3, and the aphelion around July 4 and the interactive push from both the Sun and our Galaxy must be the 2 main reasons for the planetary elliptical movement.

When the Earth is closest to the Sun January 3, the Earth is “facing” the Galaxy center and the Earth is being pushed towards the Sun. At July 4 the Earth is pushed by both the Sun and the Galaxy and will therefore take a longer ride around the sun, causing the summer period some 7 days longer than the winter period.(snip)

Could someone tell me which of these two statements is correct: The highlighted one above. or the ones below which is from "Your Guide to the Sky" by Rick Shaffer.

"When we are looking at the Summer Milky Way we're looking inward toward the center."

"Since there are more spiral arms inward than there are looking outward, the summer milky Way is far brighter than the winter Milky Way."

"When you look at the winter Milky Way, you're looking through our home arm, the Orion arm, and away from the Galactic Center.

They can't both be right, i think, and i may have quoted the wrong one in the Hypersensitive Solar System presentation http://www.para-az.com/poster06.html, where i was suggesting a correlation between hurricane activity and our orientation to the galactic center as an additional aspect beyond the lunar considerations. d...z

SpaceTravellor wrote:(snip) This pushing galactic force must therefore also have an effect on the planetary orbits and maybe also on the rotational axis. The Earth's perihelion occurs around January 3, and the aphelion around July 4 and the interactive push from both the Sun and our Galaxy must be the 2 main reasons for the planetary elliptical movement.

When the Earth is closest to the Sun January 3, the Earth is “facing” the Galaxy center and the Earth is being pushed towards the Sun. At July 4 the Earth is pushed by both the Sun and the Galaxy and will therefore take a longer ride around the sun, causing the summer period some 7 days longer than the winter period.

Could someone tell me which of these two statements is correct: The highlighted one above. or the ones below which is from "Your Guide to the Sky" by Rick Shaffer.

"When we are looking at the Summer Milky Way we're looking inward toward the center."

Hi dahlenaz,The meaning of the statement by SpaceTravellor is not clear. The Earth is at perihelion (closest to the Sun) in its' orbit of Sun in January, so that is true. The rest of his statement is somewhat confused and either requires clarification or is wrong. He seems to be saying that the degree of ellipticity of the Earth's orbit is due to the push (?) of the galactic center? What is the mechanism of this "push?" Does it affect the other planets in the same way? That the Earth, or any other orbiting body, would move slower on the aphelion (furthest from the Sun) part of its' orbit is not due to the galactic center but is a consequence of [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler's_laws_of_planetary_motion]Keplers laws of planetary motion[/url2]. How would SpaceTravellor explain Venus' nearly circular orbit? Shouldn't it be subject to the same perturbances from the galactic center as the Earth?

The statement that you quoted from Rick Shaffer, "Your Guide to the Sky", is true. Viewing the summer Milky Way is looking toward the [url2=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center]galactic center[/url2], which is located in the constellation of Sagittarius.

NORTHERN LIGHTS: A CME that was supposed to hit Earth's magnetic field on March 18th didn't. Either it missed, or the cloud is approaching so slowly that the ultimate impact could be negligible. No matter. Last night, the skies over Norway turned green anyway:

"It was a beautiful night for watching the auroras, especially with the crescent moon low on the horizon!" reports photographer Hanneke Luijting of Tromsø, Norway. http://spaceweather.com/aurora/images20 ... 1vagj37kt4"We took a thermos of hot chocolate and watched from the shelter of a (roofless) hut."

The source of the display was a run-of-the-mill undulation in the solar wind. Arctic sky watchers should be alert for more lights in the nights ahead as the solar wind continues to blow.http://spaceweather.com/

Solar wind indeed. Birkeland proved over 100 years ago, its not wind, its current.PLEASE NASA GET WITH THE TERMINOLOGY DIRECTIVE, PLEASE...GAS AND WIND, VS PLASMA AND CURRENT...YOU FIGURE OUT IF YOUR TERMINOLOGY SUCKS

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.— Nikola TeslaCasting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.— Junglelord.Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.— Junglelord

junglelord wrote: Solar wind indeed. Birkeland proved over 100 years ago, its not wind, its current.PLEASE NASA GET WITH THE TERMINOLOGY DIRECTIVE, PLEASE...GAS AND WIND, VS PLASMA AND CURRENT...YOU FIGURE OUT IF YOUR TERMINOLOGY SUCKS

“Essentially the concept exploits a natural phenomenon we see taking place in space,” says Dr Roger Walker of ESA’s Advanced Concepts Team. "When the solar wind, a ‘plasma’ of electrified gas released by the Sun, hits the magnetic field of the Earth, it creates a boundary consisting of two plasma layers. Each layer has differing electrical properties and this can accelerate some particles of the solar wind across the boundary, causing them to collide with the Earth’s atmosphere and create the aurora.

ehm, "When the solar wind, a ‘plasma’ of electrified gas released by the Sun " Come on Junglelord, thats neutral in my opinion. They really said electrified gas. Shit. Then again, who in the bloody universe is blowing that wind.

1 point for big nonsense. 1 point for electrified gas.

Match score: 1 - 1 for ESA vs big nonsense!

Researchers Christine Charles and Rod Boswell at the Australian National University in Canberra, first created plasma double layers in their laboratory in 2003 and realised their accelerating properties could enable new spacecraft thrusters. This led the group to develop a prototype called the Helicon Double Layer Thruster.

Sorry, but a good score for ESA: 3 - 1

To create the double layer, Chabert and colleagues created a hollow tube around which was wound a radio antenna. Argon gas was continuously pumped into the tube and the antenna transmitted helicoidal radio waves of 13 megahertz. This ionised the argon creating a plasma. A diverging magnetic field at the end of the tube then forced the plasma leaving the pipe to expand. This allowed two different plasmas to be formed, upstream within the tube and downstream, and so the double layer was created at their boundary. This accelerated further argon plasma from the tube into a supersonic beam, creating thrust.

Mmm... 5 - 1 because its sounds so cool. Let's go: supersonic plasmabeam. What is the difference again between a plasma beam and a plasma jet? Mr Junglelord?

But wait.

Plasma can be thought of as the fourth state of matter. Just as solids, liquids and gases have different properties, so too does plasma. It is a gas in which the atoms have been stripped of some of their electrons, meaning that it responds to the influence of electric and magnetic fields. It is estimated the 99% of the matter in the Universe is plasma. On Earth, however, naturally occurring plasma is rare, apart from within the layer of the atmosphere called the ionosphere.

Rare? Only ionosphere?

It was a text from 13 December 2005. Besides that it was an editor of the ESA that put that explanation in.But I want his job. NOW. Sorry for that.

Big nonsense: 1 point.

Endscore: ESA vs big nonsense 5 - 2

Junglelord, this is fun. Let's make this into a hobby. Editing texts and giving out scores.

Okay Im off to bed. And please let someone turn off that noisy solar wind fan for me. Thanks.

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -Nikola Tesla -1934

The voice of reason responds, "What about plasma and current?"Can you tell the difference between whats real and whats make-believe?

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have a key to the universe.— Nikola TeslaCasting Out the Nines from PHI into Indigs reveals the Cosmic Harmonic Code.— Junglelord.Knowledge is Structured in Consciouness. Structure and Function Cannot Be Seperated.— Junglelord

I've posted this before, but here it is again.NASA, working with World Book, has some science sections on the NASA Science site. One concerns heliophysics, and they give the following explanation for plasma.

The relative amounts of plasma and other gas in a given part of the solar atmosphere depends on the temperature. As the temperature increases, more and more atoms become ionized, and the atoms that are ionized lose more and more electrons. The highest part of the solar atmosphere, called the corona, is strongly ionized. The corona's temperature is usually about 3 million to 5 million K, more than enough to strip away over half the 26 electrons in its iron atoms.

How much of a gas is made up of single atoms and how much of molecules also depends upon its temperature. If the gas is relatively hot, the atoms will move about independently. But if the gas is relatively cool, its atoms may bond (combine chemically), creating molecules. Much of the sun's surface consists of a gas of single atoms. But sunspots are so cool that some of their atoms can bond to form molecules.

The remainder of this article follows the general practice of scientists by referring to both plasma and other gas simply as gas.

This way, they can say, "Yes, of course we know it's plasma; see how we have covered it and explained what plasma is and everything." However, note that although they claim that the characteristics of an ionized gas are "so special that scientists have a term for it - plasma", this oh-so-special fourth state that operates "independently" - i.e., not as directly influenced by gravity as by something else - they promptly dismiss it by saying, "Oh, all of us scientists just lump its effects in with ordinary gases and molecules and call it all gas."

Speaking of hot gas! It is evident that the writers have no idea how "special" this pesky plasma state is in the workings of their universe.

"- Fortunately, the storm was not intense enough to interfere strongly with power grids or satellite navigation, but it did trigger dazzling auroras in places like Iceland (pictured)."

I wonder what kind of follow up events are taking place. Maybe you can see this follow up event in the following picture

Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. -Nikola Tesla -1934

A geomagnetic storm began at 05:55 AM EST Monday, April 5, 2010. Space weather storm levels reached Strong (G3) levels on the Geomagnetic Storms Space Weather Scale. The source of the storming is an Earth-directed Coronal Mass Ejection associated with a weak solar flare that occurred in Active Region 1059 on April 3 at 05:54 AM EST. This is expected to be an isolated storm that should subside quickly.

One of the first things they noticed was how CMEs trying to go "up"—out of the plane of the solar system and away from the planets—are turned back down again. Gallagher confesses that they had to "crack the books" and spend some time at the white board to fully understand the phenomenon. In the end, the explanation was simple:

The magnetic field of a bar magnet.The sun's global magnetic field, which is shaped like a bar magnet, guides the wayward CMEs back toward the sun's equator. When the clouds reach low latitudes, they get caught up in the solar wind and head out toward the planets—"like a cork bobbing along a river," says Gallagher.